DISQUS

We know that it can be very difficult to "know" someone from an online persona only, just as it can be hard to know if you're buying a value or not simply by looking at a picture, and further, there are numerous important details that are left out when we make judgments based on....well, when limitations exist.
So we need to be mindful that we are getting a snapshot, in a sense, and we must be wary of dishonesty, of course, but, that said, overall I think you'll find that people are typically themselves (to the extent possible given the medium) online, and that by examining the kinds of interactions, the writing, the "friend list," if you will, that it is quite possible to discern certain things about either a person or a company.
So, in sum, while we can glean information, and most of it will be useful, we must always be mindful of the limitations of the medium, and of the possibility of deceit.
Excellent topic. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And uh, well, didn't think I'd really ever type this but...um... Way to Go Applebees. ok. yeah...sorry, it was a weak cheer.
http://jesseloop.blogspot.com

i don't even care what else is said past the phrases "social media" and "journalism" (ok ok, journalism is a word, not a phrase) but I'm adding two cents to the discussion (assuming blog author posts this news) about the fundamental tension between the affordability of presenting information, in a quite literal sense, as a business (aka "the media") and the inherent risk of censorship/offense/withdrawal of advertising dollars from sponsors.

To anyone remotely concerned with truth in journalism (as it pertains to the thing we (collectively) call reality)) this tension is assuredly known and well documented.

Historically, the pressure from revenue streams has weighed on the editorial decisions of media outlets.
Enter today's Tom Sawyer...
web 2.0
new media
citizen journalism
social networking
yeah...it's like that.

To those (and they exist) that proclaim social media is not a force to be reckoned with-just ask them, have you(herd) hears what @jesatiu tweeted?
You see...I'm just getting started.
Join me. Let's see exactly what kind of truth we can come up with when we strip away the editorial constraints of revenue!
Jim Long, you are still one of my heroes. You know the extent of my regard for those involved in the telling of truth (aka what journalism is) and you know that I admire your ability to document, and your desire to document.
Keep documenting!
Thank you for this forum, This is THE topic that people are talking about, and this is why they are talking about it. And I'm sure many of you are reading and hearing a lot about what is to come, what's on the bleeding edge, what is "in the air," and all that...

You see, we are at the brink of a ledge, it's six feet down and i'm thinking...maybe six feet, ain't so far down...and I think it's gonna be a long long time...
When we jump-into the future, which we do constantly (problematics of philosophies of time aside), we enter a new dawn. A new era. Social media, networking and the ability to share knowledge without constraint (within limitations of law) is that next stanza that we, many of us, FEEL coming...stay tuned!

What i mean is, similar to (but not directly identical) Viva La Revolution! (Exact details of revolution to come-this is a work in progress.)

Please post comments if you have heard the three songs referenced in this comment, that would be great.
If you care to, add why you think I've referrenced those songs...
@jesatiu

I noticed one point didn’t come out as clear as it should have in my previous comment:
If the image of the breasts of a woman (or the penis of a man) affects YOU personally in such a way as to incite lasciviousness or lust, then you really need to join a support group – as I said, the human body cannot ever become (as it may seems some folks would want) in and of itself, “obscene.” If we structure our thoughts to include the human form as obscene, we are paving a road to destruction…more on the end of the world in a second, but first:

*quote:
I don’t find anything more ridiculous than someone bringing up freedom of speech, democracy, and other “limited government” metaphors. Twitter and other platforms provide you with a type of amplifier, they are companies, not democratic countries. No EULA I’ve ever read resembled a bill of rights, but rather a list of restrictions. You willingly joined a benevolent dictatorship, get used to it. - Comment by Shannon Ehlers on March 15, 2008 @ 12:39 am
*/quote

I think you mean TOS and not EULA-but that aside, Constitutional law, even if you personally don't agree with it, is what (should/must) govern(s) our society; therefore, even a TOS in violation of Constitutional law is illegal.

But despite this fact, my point is that "crying wolf" over a matter that does not break any law is contrary to the will of the people, as defined by the Constitution (which is designed, by the framers, to mold to the will of the people, and not vice-versa, by the way).
Using the "block" feature is the appropriate action-that's what it is there for, as is not choosing to follow, as is protecting updates...

Asking to have someone removed from society (or a community) because you find their LEGAL content/expression to be unsatisfactory, crude, moronic, or any otherwise offensive to you personally, is to disable the societal system (government inc.) which allows our society to exists, democratically; and with ever-increasing advancement. (And also to disable any portion of that society, such as an online community.)

Keep in mind, “Painters and poets come to America, skateboarders and sculptors choose to make this their home. For them, self expression is the motivator.”

Now, who said that? I believe, if I read your blog right, Shannon, that you put this in the context of a good thing, yes? So, tell me, why would we choose to stymie that self-expression and motivation? Science, technology, medicine, law, and, ultimately, peaceable existence (or any existence at all) mandates that we do not.

That is why constitutionality and other government "stuff" applies in this situation...

I typically would not have gone to view the "breasts of twitter" had it not been for the controversy (child-rearing 101 applies even to adults: don’t give undue attention to outbursts and other non-favorable action/activity. Reward with attention only that which is positive).

I can see all the breasts right up close I care to see (damn it's good to be me). However, I don't want anyone telling me I can't choose to view someone's content/expression if I decide I want to, unless that content/expression breaks the law, thank you very much for not interfering with my constitutional rights.

Similarly, this goes double for religious zealots that spew "end of the world" fear propaganda in order to convince simple minds to follow and obey their wishes, typically for monetary gain! Don’t get me started on the Haggard’s, Robertson’s and Falwell’s (rip ty lord, glad I’m not his “soul”) out there…damn hate mongers trying to ruin the word of the Almighty power, the will of the common person, and the advancement of life…anyway…

I'm so tired of hearing Christians (not all, only those that do) state that the world is going to end on X day I can't even hardly stand it. Folks, the world is not going to end. Get used to it. Just maybe we need to collectively convince ourselves the world isn’t actually about to end (which it isn’t1) and work together, using doctrines like the Constitution/Constitutional law, to make it a place worth living in, for all, united, together, as humans being kind, gentle, courteous, artistic, expressive and, most of all, peaceable.

1: http://qntm.org/?destroy – Things of Interest, a production of Sam Hughes.
http://jesseloop.blogspot.com

See links onmy blog to view related articles and comments on social networking, ethics and business...they fit this post as...supporting documents for the thesis of this argument...and lead to notable individuals with interest in this particular phenomena, that of combining transparent ethical business with profit, and gain, even in the atypical sense of those words...

jesatiu : @Dayngr unless you take the role of a staunch humanist, and then, even those are out the window; we must use ethics and morals of our own...

. material appealing to the prurient interest was "material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts"

I’m in a hurry, this may be a bit disjointed…yet it brings up so many topics…this one argument cuts to core issues that affect a community, and a society. We have the ability to determine that book burning is good for awakening awareness to books that might be burned, and then stopping such activity. Along the lines of, any publicity is good publicity. Destroying something is a sure way to get people to try to protect that which is attempting to be destroyed. Referenced above as a measure of self correction.
Further, creating free speech allows a situation to occur that creates a need to protect free speech, expression and intelligent advance in human condition; the process of being human in a linear fashion. Another self-corrective tendency. We can’t, and therefore won’t (and shouldn’t), cease to function as an advancing form of life, or, an advanced life form.

Chris should be commended for extending the forum of discussion...the events of the evening of @foulbastard's "censoring" created news of a rogue deviant promoting material and content offensive to the sensibilities of certain, but not necessarily ordinary, humans. But I love controversy, so I followed along...

The rulings of the Supreme Court and acts of the Congress of the United States of America are "relatively clear" regarding these issues...
Back to definitions in a moment, but consider the New Hampshire Court:
Chapter 650; Obscene matter
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/6...
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this chapter that dissemination was restricted to:
I. Institutions or persons having scientific, educational, governmental or other similar justification for possessing obscene material; or
II. Non-commercial dissemination to personal associates of the accused who are not under 18 years of age. *emphasis added*


Twitter must, MUST inform the community, openly on each page, if it is believed the person who signed up for the page is a minor (what to do in the cases of minors posing as non-minors is of interest to me, by the way...) so that no community member can be guilty of, or knows that they will be guilty of it if they ignore the open warning, publishing obscene material to a minor.

Logistically, it is not possible to do this, therefore, it is assumed that the personal associates of users are not known to be minors.

To protect the innocence of children we would expect minors to be delineated in some way, but again, this is not possible. A twitter user does not necessarily know when a person is following them, or the age of that user. It returns to the responsibility of the caregiver of the minor to protect the minor, in this case.

The human body is not obscene. Images of breasts should not necessarily be sufficient nor instinctively appeal "to the prurient interest." "Prurient" is defined to mean "that which incites lasciviousness or lust." The internet is an intellectual opportunity for challenging fringe material and thought, thought which would be expected to be created by the advancing .intelligence of advanced intelligence forms of life.

Consider the following Congressional Findings:
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html

Precedent for obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable leads us back to the Cases of:
ROTH v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
BROCKETT V. SPOKANE ARCADES, INC., 472 U. S. 491 (1985)
Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 .
Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601 (1973),
Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 236 U. S. 230, 242
Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413 (1966)
Miller v. California, 413 U. S. 15 (1973)
And of course, the 1873 Comstock Act.
Let's not go back to 1873...please. (1989- Virgil v. School Board of Columbia County does this in its own right, banning work including Aristophanes' Lysistrata and Chaucer’s The Miller’s Tale.)

Censor only in violations of terms of service, which must be clear, and cases of criminal activity, including activity defined as obscene, when taken in whole, to the sensibilities of reasonable persons

Anyone who does not know the law, does not know how the law protects against censorship, and makes complaint so as to instigate turmoil regarding issues which do not violate law or invoke the duty of the Union, in upholding law, to suspend the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States. Pp. 481-485, is creating a nuisance and should be reprimanded.

We won't be silenced or censored unless we are breaking the law or violating an explicit terms of service agreement.
Just unfollow those users whose updates you find uninteresting, offensive to your tastes, or otherwise unsuitable for you. Leave the rest of us alone to decide for ourselves.

First Amendment Center
Libraries and banned books:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/libr...

http://jesseloop.blogspot.com